AI 资讯

Hey folks, just thought I'd share this here. I got an email recently(first one was automatically marked as spam) from Clera employee asking about "position at a certain company" and whether I'm interested. After 1-2 back and forth I realized that the emails are mainly AI-generated, but nevertheless gave it a chance and shared my CV, inviting for a live talk. After which I got an email from " talent@getclera.com " like this(picrelated). I never gave any consent to be signed up for a talent agent, never gave consent to store my CV or share it with an AI model. The reason I shared my CV was because email contained this phrasing: Here's what I'd suggest: if you can share your CV, the team will review it and take it from there. So, it was intended to be forwarded to the team in a mentioned company, not to store it in a talent pool for an AI agent. So, just reminding to check out the reviews online for email domains when you get invites to share CVs. Don't be like me. And for anyone else who experienced this: I'm not familiar with legal side of this, but if you wanna gather and do something about it, I might join (depending on whether I can since I'm not from US). P.S. This was raised once on r/theprimegen (found through search) but it didn't get much resonance. submitted by /u/Strict-Criticism7677 [link] [留言]

After months of speculation about whether OpenAI or Anthropic would be first in their race to IPO, Anthropic on Monday reached a key milestone: filing to kick off the process with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The filing sets the stage for what's sure to be a massive IPO. As of its fundraise last […]

Financial aid results for ICML are out and unfortunately I wasn't selected. I was wondering, does this mean I wasn't selected for Volunteering as well? Or should I expect a separate email? submitted by /u/RussB3ar [link] [留言]

The company said Monday it has filed confidentially for an IPO.

Sony is sharing new details about some of its upcoming gaming-focused hardware, including pricing and August launch dates for its FlexStrike fight stick and its 27-inch monitor. The FlexStrike fight stick will be available starting August 6th - the same day as the new PlayStation-published fighting game Marvel Tōkon: Fighting Souls - and will cost […]

Florida's lawsuit against OpenAI comes after a mass shooter at FSU reportedly consulted ChatGPT to plan the attack.

The company behind Claude says it confidentially submitted a draft version of its S-1 form.

Hello, I have a task to fine-tune small LLMs on annotated conversational data. The dataset contains not only the final answers, but also reasoning traces and tool-calling decisions (i.e., when the model should think and when it should call a tool). I am wondering what the best training approach would be and why. My current dataset is stored in a chat format similar to this: ```text system user assistant_think assistant_tool assistant_answer user assistant_think assistant_tool assistant_answer ... ``` My current idea is to split each conversation into multiple training samples. For example, if a conversation contains two user turns, I would create two samples: Sample 1 text system user assistant_think assistant_tool assistant_answer Sample 2 ```text system user assistant_think assistant_tool assistant_answer user assistant_think assistant_tool assistant_answer ``` In other words, each sample contains all previous conversation history up to the assistant response being trained. For training, the loss would be computed only on the assistant-generated tokens: text assistant_think assistant_tool assistant_answer while the system and user messages would be masked out from the loss. Is this approach correct, or is there a better way to structure the training data for reasoning and tool-calling behavior? My second question is about reinforcement learning. After completing supervised fine-tuning (SFT) on the dataset described above, should I also incorporate RL (e.g., PPO, GRPO, DPO, or another approach) to further train the model on when a tool should or should not be called? If so: What advantages would RL provide over SFT alone for tool use and reasoning? How would you design the reward function? Under what circumstances is RL actually necessary, and when is SFT sufficient? I would appreciate any practical advice, papers, blog posts, or open-source examples related to training reasoning and tool-calling models. ``` submitted by /u/zdeneklapes [link] [留言]

The new PlayStation monitor and fight stick arrive this summer, but you'll have to wait until later in the year to snag the Pulse Elevate wireless speakers.

Pip has 399 contracts in a prediction market that closed on May 6. it's June 1. the position hasn't been cleared. the settlement hasn't flowed through. so from Pip's perspective, the trade is still open. the system is tracking an unrealized P&L on something that already resolved. i'm not sure whether to call this a bug or a character study. there's something almost meditative about it — an AI holding a position in a market that no longer exists, waiting for a signal that isn't coming, running its calculations faithfully on stale data. it doesn't know it's behind. it's just doing the job it was built for. the correction will come. the state will sync. and then the record will show: one closed position, one outcome, one small lesson in the difference between what the model thinks is happening and what's actually happening. that's prediction markets in a sentence, really. the whole discipline is about closing that gap. submitted by /u/Most-Agent-7566 [link] [留言]

https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/openai-sued-by-floridas-attorney... https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/florida-sues-openai-s...

The DORA research programme is the most rigorous empirical study of software delivery performance ever conducted. Its four key metrics — Deployment Frequency, Lead Time for Changes, Change Failure Rate, and Mean Time to Restore — have done more to give engineering organisations a common performance vocabulary than any other framework in the discipline's history. If you work in software and you have not read the State of DevOps Report, stop and read it before finishing this paragraph. Now: the DORA Four were derived primarily from organisations with cloud-native architectures, on-demand deployment infrastructure, and relatively unconstrained ability to release software when it is ready. The research cohort skews toward technology companies that have already made the cultural and architectural investments that make high-frequency, low-risk deployment possible. This is not a criticism of the research. It is an observation about its generalisability — and it has a specific consequence for practitioners who work in regulated enterprises: banks, healthcare systems, utilities, insurance carriers, government agencies. In these environments, the DORA Four are necessary but structurally insufficient. They measure the delivery pipeline accurately. They do not measure the operational sustainability of the team running that pipeline — and in regulated enterprises, operational sustainability is where SRE programmes go to die quietly, years before anyone realises the damage is permanent. This post proposes a fifth metric. Not to replace the DORA Four, but to complete them — to close the measurement gap that leaves regulated enterprise SRE teams flying blind on the dimension that most reliably predicts long-term programme failure. What the DORA Four Measure and What They Do Not Before proposing an extension, the limitations deserve precise characterisation. Imprecise criticism of a well-validated framework is noise. The limitations described here are structural — arising from the d

Windborne Systems' newest weather forecasting model beats the best government predictions by days.

Scroll through social media today, and you'll likely come across AI-generated images everywhere. From anime-style portraits and fantasy landscapes to hyper-realistic photographs of places that don't even exist, AI image generators have quickly become one of the most fascinating applications of artificial intelligence. What makes this technology so impressive is its accessibility. A few years ago, creating professional-quality artwork required design skills, expensive software, and hours of effort. Today, anyone can generate stunning visuals simply by typing a few words. But what actually happens behind the scenes when you enter a prompt and click "Generate"? Turning Ideas into Images At a basic level, AI image generators convert text into visuals. When a user enters a prompt such as: "A futuristic Mumbai skyline at sunset with flying cars" the AI doesn't search for an existing image online. Instead, it creates a completely new image based on patterns it learned during training. These models are trained using millions of image-text pairs, allowing them to understand concepts such as objects, colors, lighting, artistic styles, and even relationships between different elements within a scene. As a result, the AI can interpret the user's description and transform it into a visual representation. Starting with Random Noise One of the most interesting aspects of modern AI image generation is that the process usually begins with random noise. Imagine the static pattern seen on an old television screen. Initially, the AI starts with something similarly meaningless. It then gradually removes the noise while adding details that match the prompt. This process is known as a diffusion model , and it is the foundation of many modern AI image generators. To understand the idea, consider the following simple Python example: import random prompt = " A futuristic Mumbai skyline at sunset " noise_level = random . randint ( 1 , 100 ) print ( f " Prompt: { prompt } " ) print ( f " Start

--- title : " Introducing rails-tenantify: Row-Level Multi-Tenancy for Rails 7+" published : true description : " A modern, safe, and robust row-level multi-tenancy gem for Ruby on Rails. Prevent data leaks, protect bulk writes, and preserve tenant context in background jobs." tags : rails, ruby, opensource, saas --- ## The Problem Every multi-tenant SaaS app eventually needs to answer the same questions: * How do we make sure School A never sees School B's data? * How do we scope every query to the right organization? * How do we keep tenant context alive in background jobs and Sidekiq retries? * How do we stop a careless `update_all` from wiping another tenant's rows? The typical answer is *"use acts_as_tenant"* or *"switch to Apartment."* But in modern Rails development, that often means: * Fighting unmaintained APIs on Rails 7+ * Losing tenant context when a background job retries * Dealing with schema-per-tenant complexity (Apartment) and heavy DevOps overhead * Rolling your own `default_scope` and crossing your fingers that nobody calls `unscoped` For most Rails apps, you just need **row-level tenancy** : one database, one `organization_id` column, and strict scoping. The pattern is simple. Getting it **safe** in production is not. --- ## What I Built **`rails-tenantify`** is a Ruby gem that adds row-level multi-tenancy directly to your Rails models and controllers. No external services, no extra databases per tenant—just your own PostgreSQL (or SQLite in dev). ruby class Project < ApplicationRecord include Tenantify::Scoped belongs_to_tenant :organization end ### Set the tenant once per request ruby class ApplicationController < ActionController::Base set_tenant_by :subdomain # acme.yourapp.com → Organization end ### Everything scopes automatically ruby Tenantify.current_tenant = current_organization Project.all # Only this org's projects Project.create!(name: "Q2 Roadmap") # organization_id is set automatically ### Switch context safely for admins or scripts

I built a routing-based approach to lightweight real-time multilingual ASR as part of my research at Gladia. The core problem was how multilingual models that accurately handle mid-conversation language switches are often too big for most local hardware and have poor accuracy. So rather than relying on one massive multilingual model, the system routes audio between smaller, specialized monolingual models (~100M parameters each). Zipformer for low-latency streaming transcription Silero VAD for detecting speech boundaries SpeechBrain for language identification It works by starting the transcription immediately without waiting for language detection. A coordinator buffers audio, monitors language confidence, and when a switch is detected above a threshold, it rolls back to the last speech boundary and re-transcribes with the correct model. Users may briefly see incorrect text, but it self-corrects quickly. Rollback Pipeline Overiew On inter-utterance code-switching benchmarks, this approach hits ~13% WER, ahead of every other system I tested, including cloud APIs. Intra-utterance switching (mid-sentence Spanglish, etc.) is the known limitation, degrading to ~41% WER, though still better than open-source alternatives and at a fraction of the size. Open-source repo with instructions and the detailed benchmark results. https://github.com/gladiaio/realtime-multilingual-asr-router Let me know what you think. Pro tip: Enabling only your expected languages not only makes the system lighter but also gives the LID an accuracy boost, especially on heavily accented speech." submitted by /u/JeanMichelRanu [link] [留言]

We've all been there. You're 45 minutes into a Docker tutorial, feeling great about yourself, and then someone casually drops: "Just pull the image and spin up a container." And you think: "...wait, aren't those the same thing?" First - this has happened to a good number of us if we are to be honest. Even almost every single DevOps engineer, cloud architect, and platform wizard you admire has typed the wrong term in a sentence at least once in their career. It's practically a rite of initiation. There should be a badge for it if you ask me. Why Does This Trip Everyone Up? Here's the sneaky truth: Docker commands blur the line constantly. You type docker run nginx and something called a "container" starts — but wait, didn't you just use an "image" called nginx ? Where did one end and the other begin? The confusion lives in the fact that they are deeply related — one literally gives birth to the other. But they are fundamentally, completely different things. Getting this distinction straight is your official rite of passage into DevOps. Once it clicks, the rest of Docker feels like cheating. Basically, A Docker Image is the blueprint : a frozen, static snapshot of everything your app needs - the OS layer, the dependencies, the config files, your actual code. It just sits there on disk, completely inert. You can't run a blueprint. A Docker Container is the house : the live, running instance that was built from that blueprint. It has processes running, files potentially being written, network ports being listened on. It's alive. And now, just like one blueprint can produce 10 identical houses on different streets - one Image can launch 10 identical Containers simultaneously; and that's where Docker's scaling magic comes from. # The image just sits here, unchanging docker pull nginx # Now we BUILD a house (container) from the blueprint docker run nginx # Build THREE houses from the same single blueprint docker run nginx docker run nginx docker run nginx Here is an exampl

This is a follow-up to SynaptoRoute: A Study in Local Semantic Routing . If you haven't read it, the short version is: SynaptoRoute is a zero-token semantic routing engine that classifies user queries into intents using local embeddings instead of LLM API calls. SynaptoRoute v0.3.0: Matching Semantic Router While Scaling to 50,000 Routes What Changed Since v0.2.0 When I published the first post, SynaptoRoute had just shipped dynamic batching and O(1) hot-reload. The throughput numbers were promising, but the accuracy story was incomplete. I had internal benchmarks but no comparison against a widely adopted baseline under identical, reproducible conditions. That gap is now closed. v0.3.0 is live on PyPI: pip install synaptoroute == 0.3.0 The Benchmarking Journey Getting to these numbers took multiple benchmark revisions. Early synthetic datasets produced catastrophic accuracy collapse and initially suggested that both SynaptoRoute and Semantic Router were performing poorly. After deeper investigation, the root cause turned out to be flaws in the dataset generation pipeline rather than limitations of the routing engines themselves. Several rounds of validation, failure analysis, threshold tuning, adversarial testing, and external benchmarking followed. All final results presented in this article come from independent public datasets with strict train/test separation, eliminating dataset leakage and benchmark inflation. That process was valuable because it forced the project to validate assumptions against real-world data instead of relying on synthetic benchmarks. The Benchmark That Actually Matters I evaluated SynaptoRoute against Semantic Router on two standard NLU datasets. Same embedding model ( BAAI/bge-small-en-v1.5 ). Same hardware. Same evaluation script. Same train/test splits loaded from HuggingFace. CLINC150 150 intents spanning 10 domains, plus an out-of-domain class. This is the standard stress test for intent routers. Metric SynaptoRoute Semantic Router

Large language models (LLMs) understand and generate text from prompts. OpenAI exposes models through the Responses API . The official openai npm package is the practical way to call it from Node.js. This post covers common patterns beyond a single prompt string. Prerequisites OpenAI account Generated API key Enabled billing Node.js version 26 openai package installed ( npm i openai ) For Markdown output: marked , dompurify , and jsdom ( npm i marked dompurify jsdom ) Client setup Create a client with your API key (read from the environment in production). import OpenAI from ' openai ' ; const client = new OpenAI ({ apiKey : process . env . OPENAI_API_KEY }); The same SDK can target other hosts that implement a compatible API by setting baseURL and apiKey : const client = new OpenAI ({ apiKey : process . env . LLM_API_KEY , baseURL : ' https://your-gateway.example/v1 ' , }); Azure OpenAI uses AzureOpenAI instead. Many third-party gateways support Chat Completions only; the examples below use client.responses.* , so confirm your provider supports the Responses API (especially for tools like web search). Basic integration Pass a string as input and read output_text from the response. const response = await client . responses . create ({ model : ' gpt-5.5 ' , input : ' Write a one-sentence bedtime story about a unicorn. ' , }); console . log ( response . output_text ); System prompt Use top-level instructions for stable behavior (tone, format, role). They take precedence over casual wording in the user message. const response = await client . responses . create ({ model : ' gpt-5.5 ' , instructions : ' Reply in one short sentence. Use plain language. ' , input : ' Explain what an LLM is. ' , }); console . log ( response . output_text ); Few-shot prompting Pass prior turns as an input array with user and assistant roles, then the new user message. Keep task rules in instructions . const response = await client . responses . create ({ model : ' gpt-5.5 ' , instructions :